Political Report: An Assault on Hunting Equals an Attack on the Second Amendment

t's no coincidence that the politicians who oppose
our Second Amendment freedoms also tend to oppose hunting. Direct,
frontal attacks on our gun rights have been rare in the new
Congress so far, but our opponents are showing no such caution in
launching assaults on our hunting heritage. There are many
parallels between congressional action to restrict hunting and
firearms, and it is clear to me that in the end, the point of the
game is the same.

If Congress can ban the importation of polar
bear trophies, it can ban the transportation of your favorite deer
mounts across state lines. And it can ban your
guns.

Debate over climate change, of all things, gave anti-hunting
lawmakers their first opportunity to pop up and take a shot at
hunting. The question of "global warming" is one that can't be
answered in these pages, if anywhere. But the groups who are always
on the lookout for opportunities to ban hunting found a home in
this debate.

They have adopted the polar bear as the icon of "global
warming," and are pushing Congress to ban the importation of polar
bear trophies. Anti-hunting sympathizers in both the House and
Senate took up the question in debate over the spending bill that
funds the Department of the Interior.

Admittedly, few hunters are lucky enough to have the time,
resources and gumption to pursue a polar bear. For American
hunters, a polar bear hunt means a long, exceptionally costly trip
into the harshest reaches of the Canadian Arctic. As of this
writing, a national total of 168 hunters are awaiting permission to
import their polar bear trophies. With all this in mind, you may be
tempted to wonder whether this issue has implications for the
majority of American hunters. Rest assured it does, and in these
implications we find numerous parallels to our work in the Second
Amendment debate.

The most striking parallel is the "invent a problem to solve"
mentality of the anti-hunting cabal. Sound science proves without a
doubt that polar bear populations are healthy, even thriving. But
that didn't stop the lead sponsor of the ban, Rep. Jay Inslee,
D-Wash., from asserting that mankind is threatening the bear
populations in two ways--"global warming" and "sport hunting."

Unintended consequences are also shared between the two debates.
The gun-ban lobby is perpetually aghast when their own media
campaigns backfire against them, causing droves of people to buy
guns that might otherwise sit on the shelves. And we know, again
from sound science, that banning guns does not reduce crime. If
anything, crime increases in jurisdictions that ban guns. So by
pushing their tired agenda of bans, restrictions and regulations,
the gun-ban lobby is fueling the very outcomes they say they
oppose.

So it is with polar bear hunting. Anti-hunting politicians
believe they can "save the bears" by banning the importation of
trophies. Banning importation effectively bans polar bear hunting
by U.S. hunters, since the only hunters willing to invest that much
in a trophy certainly want to bring it home to their collection.
But it does nothing to limit the overall numbers of bears that will
be killed. The same number of bear permits will be issued to the
native communities who live among the polar bears, and the same
number of bears will be killed for sustenance.

Worse yet, the ban would dry up the biggest sources of funding
for polar bear conservation. Bear hunting generates nearly $2.5
million dollars annually for native Nunavut communities. Because of
this influx of resources, the government of Nunavut and the
Wildlife Management Board of Nunavut contribute $1 million per year
to polar bear conservation, as an investment in the economic
well-being of local communities. In addition, every American hunter
who imports a polar bear trophy pays a $1,000 permit fee, which has
raised more than $700,000 for polar bear conservation since 1994.
Banning the importation of bear trophies would erase the economic
incentive for bear conservation, and bear populations would
suffer.

Finally, the Second Amendment and hunting debates both feature
deceptive, emotional arguments from our political opposition. The
Humane Society of the United States (hsus) claimed that it does not
oppose hunting, but only the most "inhumane, unsporting and
biologically unsustainable hunts." This is not a claim hsus has
made when it has campaigned in nearly 20 states to ban the hunting
of doves, deer, black bears and other common species.

And this debate featured another appearance from the American
Hunters and Shooters Association (ahsa), claiming to represent
"responsible hunters" who supported the ban. Loyal readers are
familiar with this fledgling anti-gun, anti-hunting group, and the
funding it receives from major backers of gun-ban groups and
politicians. ahsa's statement underscored that the group exists
purely to confuse policy makers into believing that gun owners and
hunters would support policies that are not in their best
interest.

None of it worked--this time. The House voted down the import
ban by a vote of 242 to 188. But the battle isn't over for the
bears--the Senate included the ban language in its version of the
spending bill. There will be more battles in the weeks to come to
ensure that science, logic and reason will prevail.

If Congress can ban the importation of polar bear trophies, it
can ban the transportation of your favorite deer mounts across
state lines. And it can ban your guns. Your NRA-ILA is here to make
sure that none of this happens--no matter if you're a hunter, a
shooter or both.

Today, Sub. Senate Bill 199 is expected to receive its final votes; however, anti-gun groups are actively trying to defeat this bill! It is important that you contact your state legislators TODAY and tell them that an ...

Recently the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms sent out a notice to California firearms dealers with information regarding the recently passed “assault weapon” legislation, SB880 and AB 1135.

Guinness World Records may refuse to acknowledge feats pertaining to the lawful exercise of right to keep and bear arms, but how about a world record for most shameless attempt to politicize tragedy? The competition would ...

Today, both Senate Bill 199 and Sub. House Bill 48 had their final hearings. Both bills are expected for consideration on the House and Senate floors as early as tomorrow. Anti-gun groups are pushing misguided ...

Fairfax, Va.— California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Friday a package of gun bills that were rushed through the state legislature with no regard for proper process. The National Rifle Association Institute for ...

Today, December 5, 2016, the Honolulu Police Department announced that the firearm permit application fee has increased to $42.00. This fee increase is one of the first effects of the provisions in Senate Bill 2954 which was signed into ...

A while back, we wrote about an inane NBC Today Show segment that recommended homeowners rely on car keys and wasp spray to defend themselves against burglars and other home invaders. A former New York ...

It appears that those gun rights supporters hoping that the leaders of the Democratic Party would engage in a moment of self-reflection following their historic defeat in the 2016 election may be left wanting. Despite ...

With the election of Donald Trump in early November, many mainstream news sources predicted a substantial downturn in gun sales. Some even claimed that Trump’s victory would cause slower sales on Black Friday, which is ...

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.